On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:33:00PM -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> From: Tarun <[email protected]>
>
> No functional changes, just a minor knit. Stumbled across the kernel doc for
> schedule_timeout() which quotes "In all cases the return value is guaranteed
> to be non-negative". Also, the return code of schedule_timeout() already
> checks
> for negative values "return timeout < 0 ? 0 : timeout;" and returns 0
> in such cases. Furthermore, the msec_to_jiffies returns an ungined long
> value. So, let's do away with the redundant check for an atomic
> pipe update.
>
> v2: Commit message changes (Manasi).
>
> Reviewed-by: Manasi Navare <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <[email protected]>
Pushed to dinq. Thanks for the patch and review.
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> index aa1dfaa692b9..9cd4be020840 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ void intel_pipe_update_start(const struct
> intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state)
> if (scanline < min || scanline > max)
> break;
>
> - if (timeout <= 0) {
> + if (!timeout) {
> DRM_ERROR("Potential atomic update failure on pipe
> %c\n",
> pipe_name(crtc->pipe));
> break;
> --
> 2.13.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
